Washington D.C., Jan 10, 2020 / 07:43 am (CNA).- The bishops of the United States have narrowly approved an increase on the amount dioceses must contribute to the national bishops’ conference. The measure initially failed to pass when put to… […]
Denver, Colo., Jan 10, 2020 / 12:00 am (CNA).- While hundreds of thousands of pro-life advocates will gather in Washington, D.C. for the National March for Life this Jan. 24, thousands will attend similar events in major cities like Los Angeles, Chicag… […]
Most scholars agree that it was the Vietnam War that spurred serious study of trauma and its after effects. This led, in 1980, to the American Psychiatric Association introducing formal diagnostic criteria for what it […]
Lincoln, Neb., Jan 9, 2020 / 06:30 pm (CNA).- On the first day of the Nebraska Unicameral’s legislative session, state Sen. Suzanne Geist introduced a bill that would ban a common procedure used for second-trimester abortions.
The bill, introduced Jan. 8, seeks to ban dilation and evacuation abortions, or “dismemberment abortions” as the bill calls them.
“Dismemberment abortion means an abortion in which, with the purpose of causing the death of an unborn child, a person purposely dismembers the body of a living unborn child and extracts him or her one piece at a time from the uterus through use of clamps, grasping forceps, tongs, scissors, or similar instruments that, through the convergence of two rigid levers, slice, crush, or grasp a portion of the unborn child’s body to cut or rip it off,” the bill says.
The bill would make an exception for cases in which the mother’s life is at risk by continuing a pregnancy, or for cases in which a physician determines there is “serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function” should the mother continue a pregnancy.
Only doctors performing dismemberment abortions would face sanctions under the bill; it would not seek to punish women seeking or undergoing the procedure, or any staff assisting the physician, including nurses or pharmacists.
“Regardless of our individual opinions on the issue of abortion, I think we can all agree that no living human being should be torn apart limb by limb,” Geist said at a Jan. 8 press conference, NET News reported.
The bill comes at a time when several other states have passed or introduced bills that restrict abortion in some way, while other states are scrambling to expand access to abortion, in anticipation of a possible overturning of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion in the U.S.
Some bills restricting abortion have passed state legislatures, but have been blocked in court.
Geist has said she is not concerned about judicial appeals of the bill.
“My job is to legislate, not to worry about what the courts are going to do,” the state senator told NET News.
The bill was introduced on the same day that Nebraska Governor Pete Ricketts declared the anniversary of Roe v. Wade as a day of prayer for the state of Nebraska.
“Nebraska state law states that it is ‘the will of the people of the State of Nebraska and the members of the Legislature to provide protection for the life of the unborn child whenever possible,’” Ricketts said in a proclamation.
“Nebraskans display our pro-life values in a multitude of ways from the crisis pregnancy centers that provide free care for expecting parents to the prayer vigils held across the state every year.”
The governor encouraged Nebraskans to pray according to their own faith tradition for an end to abortion, as well as to “take direct action to aid mothers, fathers and families in need, especially those expecting a child who cannot provide for themselves.”
Caracas, Venezuela, Jan 9, 2020 / 05:19 pm (CNA).- The presidency of the Venezuelan bishops’ conference warned Wednesday that the disputed election of Luis Parra as president of the National Assembly is “contrary to all constitutional legality.”
Parra was elected head of Venezuela’s de jure legislature Jan. 5 by pro-government lawmakers, while opposition legislators were blocked from entering the chamber. It is the latest in a crisis over the government of Venezuela.
Under the socialist administration of Nicolas Maduro, Venezuela has been marred by violence and social upheaval, with severe shortages of food and medicine, high unemployment, blackouts, and hyperinflation. Some 4.5 million Venezuelans have emigrated since 2015.
The Venezuelan bishops’ presidency said Jan. 8 that Parra’s election was “a shameful event” that “has replanted in the souls of Venezuelans reasons for hopelessness and a greater sense of helplessness.”
Opposition leader Juan Guaidó and 100 other opposition legislators were blocked Jan. 5 by Venezuelan National Guard troops from attending a vote in the legislature, where Guaidó was standing for re-election as its leader. Parra was elected instead, without a quorum, by pro-government lawmakers and some opposition politicians. Parra had been expelled last month from the Justice First party over alleged corruption.
Telesur, a state television network in Venezuela, said Parra was elected with 140 votes. The National Assembly has 167 seats.
Guaidó had declared himself interim president of Venezuela in January 2019, after president Nicolas Maduro was sworn in for a second term, having won a contested election in which oppositon candidates were barred from running or imprisoned. Guaidó and the Venezuelan bishops held Maduro’s second term to be invalid, and the presidency vacant.
He said that according to the Venezuelan constitution, when the presidency falls vacant, power is assumed by the president of the National Assembly.
On Jan. 5, Guaidó and opposition legislators held their session of the National Assembly at the headquarters of El Nacional, a Caracas daily. At that session, Guaidó was re-elected president of the legislature by about 100 lawmakers.
Then on Jan. 7, Guaidó and 100 of his fellow opposition lawmakers accessed the National Assembly only after a half-hour stand-off with National Guardsmen who had cordoned the building. Pro-government legislators left when the opposition entered, and power to the building was cut.
Venezuela’s bishops said that the events of Jan. 7 were “a new abuse of power … which implies a hijacking of more than one democratic institution.”
They indicated that the recent events are “a new manifestation of the totalitarian ideology of those who hold political power. They have promoted and protected the lack of autonomy of the legitimate National Assembly; and, at the same time, they intend to recognize a directive chosen irritably against all constitutional legality ”.
The bishops urged members of the armed forces to place themselves “on the true side of the Constitution and of the people to which they belong and swore to defend.”
Archbishop José Luis Azuaje Ayala of Maracaibo, president of the Venezuelan bishops’ conference, said Jan. 7 that Parra’s election as speaker was an “invalid appointment” which pro-government lawmakers had done by “violating all norms of the assembly.”
Archbishop Azuaje’s statement was read at the opening of the Venezuelan bishops’ plenary assembly.
He said that because Parra’s National Assembly presidency is invalid, “it will be the responsibility of the true leadership elected by vote and according the norms of the National Assembly, to continue to examine deeply how to resolve the main problems afflicting the people.”
Archbishop Azuaje asked citizens to be aware because what is behind the crisis the country is undergoing is “power, as it is conceived and put into practice. Today, power as dominion is gaining ground against the truth.”
He called for “a new history based on the common good and on freedom.”
The opposition gained control of the National Assembly in a December 2016 election, and in 2017 Maduro formed a pro-government legislature, the Constituent Assembly, to supersede it. The Venezuelan bishops do not recognize the Constituent Assembly as legitimate or valid.
In 2018, Venezuela’s annual inflation rate was 1.3 million percent; late in 2019, the IMF forecast an inflation rate of 10 million percent for that year.
I can distinctly remember the day I realized that my belief in Scripture and my belief in science might be in conflict. I was eleven or twelve, and one day it occurred to me—with something […]
Washington D.C., Jan 9, 2020 / 04:00 pm (CNA).- Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.), one of the last remaining pro-life Democrats in Congress, has questioned the commitment of some pro-life groups to bipartisanship in the movement to end abortion.
“I’ve gotten some support from pro-life groups, but honestly, not as much as I’d like to see,” Lipinski told CNA in an interview on Thursday.
“I am not someone who’s a big self-promoter but, look, I have put myself on the line in a more difficult political situation than almost any other pro-life member of Congress,” Lipinski said.
Lipinski is an eight-term pro-life Catholic congressman now fighting for his re-election in Illinois’ third congressional district, in the suburbs of Chicago. The district is safely Democratic, but this election cycle marks the second straight challenge Lipinski has seen in the primary.
In the 2018 Democratic primary, his opponent Marie Newman raised more than $1.4 million while making Lipinski’s pro-life support a focal point of her campign. A significant amount of outside money went into the race, and Lipinski barely held her off with a slim 2,145-vote margin. Buoyed by her strong challenge, Newman promptly announced her intent to run again in 2020.
“Some people in the pro-life movement do not seem to believe it’s that important to protect pro-life Democrats. And I think you just have to look at what the other side is doing, see the value that they place on defeating someone like me,” Lipinski said.
Actively pro-abortion groups such as the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) and Planned Parenthood have lined up in support of Newman.
Lipinski had to dig deep to survive the 2018 primary, raising more than $1.5 million and spending almost $2.4 million. Although he has not had to spend as much this election cycle, Newman’s campaign presents another stiff challenge just two years after the last one.
Democrats who wear the pro-life mantle are few and far between. Lipinski was one of only seven candidates for the House or Senate endorsed by the group Democrats for Life in the 2018 elections.
The re-election of John Bel Edwards—Louisiana’s governor who signed a “heartbeat” bill into law in an election year—was seen as a boost to hopes that more such Democrats could win in red or purple states.
Yet in a presidential election year, the top candidates have issued a stern challenge to the party’s voters—stand behind abortion access.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) called abortion rights “human rights” and “economic rights” at a November debate; Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) at the same debate called on American men to support abortion, saying that “if there’s ever a time in American history where the men of this country must stand with the women, this is the moment.”
Joe Biden, meanwhile, reversed his longstanding support of the Hyde Amendment and now supports taxpayer-funded abortion. Pete Buttigieg has said that decision to have an abortion, even until birth, is up to the woman.
As Lipinski told CNA on Wednesday, he has not seen the support he has desired from pro-life groups and individuals while he faces one of his toughest re-elections yet.
While Democratic party leaders have acknowledged the possibility of pro-life Democrats—House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Mary.) said in September that “Absolutely there’s room in our party” for pro-life members— and some of Lipinski’s colleagues refuse to undermine him, others in the party, including progressive Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), have openly or quietly supported Newman’s campaign.
“So it disappoints me at times, when people say that they’re not going to support me,” Lipinski said of pro-life voters, giving the example of his vote to impeach President Donald Trump in December as a possible sticking point with some in the movement.
“I think that [vote] should have nothing whatsoever to do with supporting a pro-life candidate,” he said.
The day that the House voted to impeach President Trump, the pro-life group Susan B. Anthony issued a scathing indictment of the vote and said it “will be a huge political liability for House members going into 2020.”
The pro-life movement needs both parties to thrive moving forward, Lipinski said.
“I think that if the pro-life movement is going to be confined to one party, it would be even more difficult to ever get anything done to protect life,” he said. “It will be easier for the Republican Party to take pro-life voters for granted—even easier than it is right now.”
Lipinski will not be attending the national March for Life in Washington, D.C., as the House will not be in session that week. He said he will be campaigning in his district with the primary approaching on March 17.
However, Lipinski will address the Chicago March for Life this Saturday, and will speak at a pro-life dinner around the march as well.
Vatican City, Jan 9, 2020 / 02:35 pm (CNA).- A five-year-old British girl, whose parents won a legal battle to take her to Italy for medical treatment, has been moved out of intensive care, and into a rehabilitative unit for children with incurable ill… […]
Portland, Maine, Jan 9, 2020 / 02:00 pm (CNA).- Bishop Robert Deeley of Portland issued a directive on Thursday suspending the distribution of Communion under both species and the exchange of handshakes during the sign of peace in response to… […]
Geneva, Switzerland, Jan 9, 2020 / 01:00 pm (CNA).- A Swiss prisoner is challenging the country’s policy to bar inmates from receiving assisted suicide after his request to die was denied.
Peter Vogt, 69, is serving the equivalent of a life sent… […]
© Catholic World Report